Slashdot Mirror
Music Streaming to Overtake Downloads
Barence writes "Streaming will overtake download services to become the dominant force in the online music industry, according to industry insiders. The claim comes in the wake of the PRS cutting the amount of royalties streaming services have to pay songwriters to about a third. Sites will now pay the PRS 0.085p per track, compared to the 0.22p they paid previously. On-demand streaming services still have to pay the record labels about 1p for every track streamed, however. Steve Purdham, CEO of music service We7, says the move will accelerate the growing trend towards online streaming which has seen newcomers such as his site and Spotify attract millions of users in less than a year. 'Over the next 12-24 months you'll see a move towards listening [online],' Purdham told PC Pro. 'Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.'"
Sometimes, I want something to actually be MINE.
idk, because you're not always connected to the internet?
because possession is 9/10ths of ownership (if it's not, it should be).
Sites will now pay the PRS 0.085p per track, compared to the 0.22p they paid previously.
I assume that one p means 0.01 UK pounds but I could be wrong about that.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Can't load it onto your iPod.
Unless you are tied to a PC all the time, (or have a fancy-schmancy iPhone or touch), this idea won't be as universal as good old MP3/WMA/AAC.
I have at least 5 different devices that cannot stream that I use weekly. Also why waste the bandwidth playing the same songs over and over again, yesterday I listened to almost 2 gigs of music and some days I might listen to 3-4x that amount when I listen to my 1980's punk FLAC-encoded albums. I use Comcast that would mean I would use 1/3-2/3 of my bandwidth per month just for background noise.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
What do they know? If there was some knowledge in the industry about the future we wouldn't have the mess we have right now.
I for one have used Spotify in the past. I no longer use it because every couple weeks I had to hunt down a British proxy in order to log in--Spotify isn't available in the US yet, hence the proxy. However for the two months I did use it, I loved it. The music library is a decent size, the playlists work well, and it even has the ability to have collaborative playlists. The creator of uTorrent, Ludvig Strigeus, is involved with Spotify. Granted, Spotify did not stop me from downloading music due to needing to put music on my iPod, I did download a lot less during those months. Spotify allowed me to listen to complete albums without needing to download first. This resulted in me only downloading the albums I really wanted on my iPod. Also, probably the most convienant part of Spotify was that I was able to set my laptop out at parties and people could add almost whatever song they could think of onto the playlist.
Spotify will not replace downloading, but I do believe that it will significantly reduce it.
While I like my CD collection, I have to admit that Spotify is really really handy for casual listening. I have a jukebox of ridiculous proportions at my disposal, for the relatively cheap price of a few audio ads a day. (Which I could also get rid of with the subscription option.)
Streaming has the additional benefit of making it impossible to lose / delete what you don't story anyway.
I don't really think a lot of people will find the buying option very attractive once 3G cell phones acquire this ability... I'm waiting for Spotify for my phone, (they already hired an S60 developer,) but then again I live in Finland. ;)
.: Max Romantschuk
You know, in a world without iPods - these insiders might be right. However that's not even remotely like the real world we live in. It does seem to bear a striking resemblance to the world U.S. cellphone company executives are trying to pretend we live in, though - that world where we pay them some amount of money to buy a service that duplicates what we can do for free without their hardware (yeah, Verizon, I'm looking at YOU).
I for one listen to a heck of a lot more music while I'm out and about than when I'm sitting at/near my computer. I realize I'm probably in the minority in that regard - but I think it's a safe bet that almost everyone that purchases music nowadays wants to listen to it on the go at least part of the time. Without ubiquitous, unlimited, cheap internet access that's not going to be music that's streamed.
#DeleteChrome
But as a consumer I sure as heck don't. Think of how bad DRM is, well add another layer and you got streaming media (that is also DRM "protected"), also add the need for an always on connection (this works on my iPod how exactly?) and I'm sure we have a winner! Remind me again why I shouldn't be swapping around 1 terabyte hard drives with my friends?
Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.
Wait a second. What goes for bandwidth issues that has been a hot topic lately regarding BitTorrent traffic, how will this be any better? If every song you hear through your PC is streamed, my guess is it would choke internet more than the current BitTorrent traffic.
I am the lawn!
I didn't see what part of streaming is going to surpass digital downloads - shear data transfer, unique tracks transferred, money made, etc. I don't doubt that they'll transfer more data, since if someone wants to listen to a song 3 times in a week, they have to download it 3 times. Maybe even unique tracks will be higher, since people would be more likely to listen to a song they don't know if they'll like or not if they don't have to pay anything extra (free or flat monthly fee). However I'm not sure streaming will pass the revenue of digital purchases any time soon.
'Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.'"
I don't have any numbers to back this up, but surely the majority of music is listened to off line at the moment, on mp3 players etc? The whole point of portable devices is that you aren't tethered to your PC to listen.
For this to change, it needs to become much easier and cheaper for portable devices to stream music "on the go".
Orlando
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
A person who owns and runs a streaming music site is saying that people will actually start using the system?
Please that is worse then the head of Government Motors saying that US citizens are going to purchase those small cars he wants to force on everyone.
Here in Australia we have these horrendously tight-arsed ISPs who charge us ridiculous amounts of money for bandwidth. For my $70/month, I get 40gb of downloads and that's separated into 20gb peak and 20gb off-peak, on a 1.5mbps ADSL connection. I'd easily listen to far more than 20gb of music in any given month.
... wait, what?
Unless they are going to start streaming lossless audio I have almost no interest in streamed music content.
Sure, it might be fine when you don't have access to your music collection, but I have spent a lot on money on my audio hardware, there is no way I will be happy amplifying the crappy streamed mp3's or what ever compressed format a service chooses.
If there are high quality (lossless) services out there, please let me know.
Few weeks back, my friend showed me how iPhone (or something else from Apple.) identifies correct song and allows you to download by listening clip of a song from my mobile for few seconds. The song I played was hardly 16kbps mp3 and sound quality must have been not so great. It even showed me the Album which song it belongs to.
It was amazing.
hilarious
The future of "radio" is on the Internet, period. Although we'll probably never be fully free of the copyright cartel's grasp when it comes to music, the Internet levels the playing field and gives independent artists and stations equal footing and gives the listener a potentially unlimited amount of choice. And really, it's already happening. You can find sites and streams playing really good music by independent artists that meets or exceeds the quality of any professionally-produced stuff, just like open source software tends to best proprietary offerings because the creators are focused first on quality and their own idea of what's "good" instead of rushing to meet deadlines or achieve monetary gain.
After all the crap that the RIAA has pulled over the last decade, I try very to find music and streams that don't fund them or their artists every time I listen to or buy a song. On of my favorite "stations" is scenesat.com. They play music only from demoscene artists who give their work away freely. If you're into electronica, you'd do well to give them a listen. It's not all chiptunes and rehashed trance, some of it beats the pants off the offerings of similar commercial artists. I'd like to see more stations like this around. If the RIAA and PRS aren't careful, they could start to see some real competition in the near future from musicians who do what they do not because they want a phat paycheck someday, but because they love what they do and want to share their art with anyone who cares to listen.
If you know of more stations that stream independent royalty-free music, please share with the rest of us.
Use Virtual Audio Cable or a program that records everything going through your computer, to record all the music being played, then go back and remove the ads.
Tree huggers won't be a happy. Surely it takes more electricity to transport data around the world than it does to store it. Saying that, Spotify is one of the best programs ever released, simply because of the large catalogue of music and the way it's organised. I remember when the MP3 first took off people complained that it couldn't be streamed to the standard 33.6k modem. Alot of people preffered to stream using Real Audio because the file sizes were smaller. The sound quality sucked though. Personally, I'd prefer to be able to create playlists on the fly and that's why I think streaming is a good thing. In time people will be using their phones more for data purposes and for music, so it makes sense to have applications like spotify mobile so you dont get bored of the same music all the time.
I used too download music until I found Spotify nine months ago. Their database of music is impressive, it's fast and with descent sound quality. I never thought it would replace my .mp3 collection, but it did.
Another reason streaming is not the future - the return of download quotas. Even if there was internet everywhere, why would you waste your newly imposed quota downloading the same material over and over again?
They are trying to push it on us. Force it on us. Cloud Computing is not and should not be the way of the future. It gives the "providers" too much power. There has to be some balance between having our own personal digital copies of things, and "borrowing" it from the providers. There is clearly some kind of agenda behind the companies that push Web 2.0 concepts. Could it be money and power? Minute after minute, hour after hour. Web 2.0 is a corporate gangster's paradise.
The whole issue presupposes a US-centric model, where nearly everybody has access to a decent broadband connection. Here in Australia the best that most people can get at the moment is ADSL2+, which is quite good in itself, but suffers from the fact that we have a skinny pipe between here and the rest of the world. But outside major metro areas, there are still many areas where the best we can get is dialup. I have a property in Tasmania, which despite all the noisy promises about broadband rollouts looks like it is going to completely fall off the radar, and neither the politicians nor the telcos could give a fuck.
In any case, those of us in metro areas are typically capped at something like 4GB/month for AU$49 depending on your plan. Having to stream all content would quickly make a savage dent in that.
Now that seems reasonable. Finally !
It is strange that these people still hold true the fiction that streaming and downloading are different things...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
If you like transcoded quality, buy your streams all you want. The quality is very low, unless your hearing is as bad as your sight then you may not notice how bad it is.
This is how it works. Take a mp3. Let's call it 128 kbps. Serve is up as various rate streams: 32, 64, 112, 192, 256, 320. All from the same 128 kbps mp3. That's what is done. And no, a 320 kbps transcoded from 128 kbps mp3 is not better, it's likely much worse: the 128 kbps encode removed 90% of the matrial. The 320 kbps transcode of that will remove another 35%, leaving you with, if you like the math, roughly 3^ of the original material. And that's a 320 kbps transcode, nevermind the others.
I also listen to music when I'm travelling around town, etc. but I actually spend more time at work listening to internet radio. If this article, which is undoubtedly astroturf, defines satellite radio as streaming, then that will also draw millions of more people into the streaming category. Like everyone at 24 hour Fitness is listening to the satellite radio service piped through the speakers...
Trying to get people to pay for internet radio is an unrealistic fantasy, though. When I look at sites like cbsradio.com, I wonder if they're planning to switch to a subscription model or try to build revenue through ads..
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
> Not really, net radio is an always-on source of music, so why record it?
Here at my work in the NSA, I have trouble accessing my favorite streaming service. Posting anonymously for a reason :)
OK, OK, that was just a joke.... the NSA part, obviously.... but be informed that we are still far away from having ubiquitous access to the Internet, and security considerations will always make this only a dream no matter how far communication technology advances.
I still prefer physical media, like CDs, but I'm warming up to the idea of downloads (legal)..
Now, why not have streaming AND downloading? They both serve a purpose..
Take Spotify; I like having a lot of music at my fingertips, being able to try new stuff, find new stuff by pure coincidence, etc..
The only black cloud on the music-sky is really the labels.. They insist on regions for music. Wait a minute.. regions? I can buy a CD from whichever country I want (unless there's some embargo-crap going on), but once it's online distribution, they want to tell me what I can and cannot listen to? Hell no!
I remember having various odd tracks in my playlists.. I had the theme from Psycho Soldier, The Bottlerockets - Nancy Sinatra, Kim Chi - Octopus Song, and a remix from some DJ-mixalbum of Hyo-ri's Dark Angel.. All those were removed from my view..
Here's a novel idea; let anyone who wants to pay, stream and/or download, no matter where they are.
*joking* I guess culture really IS the new munitions! */joking*
I don't have any numbers to back this up, but surely the majority of music is listened to off line at the moment, on mp3 players etc? The whole point of portable devices is that you aren't tethered to your PC to listen.
I only really listen to music while sitting (near)by my computer, as background music while doing something else. It's pretty much the same for every person whose listening habits I have knowledge of. And almost all of these people have some portable device they _could_ use to listen to music on the go, they just don't. I usually listen to just podcasts with my portable player, not music.
In any case, for me Spotify has been a perfect application. I'd say the vast majority of my music listening needs are met by it. I realize that it could go down at any moment, and so could my internet connection, but that would just mean that I couldn't use this one additional way of listening to music. It's not like I'm giving up on anything by using it.
'Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC?
So I can put it on my PSP?
'Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.'"
So now that the industry is losing the battle of having tracks with DRM and being able to completely control their content, they are now trying to say outright that we won't even be able to OWN the music. Yeah, who really needs to own anything anyway? Ownership is so overrated.
It won't be long before every song in your library, or every song you ever wanted for that matter, will be able to fit on a small portable device. What better reason to acutally own the songs. The industry is truly a crock of shit.
The one disadvantage of the pirate bay is that you need to wait hours after the release until the movie is on there, and no matter when you want to watch it you need to wait hours to download it. With streaming, you can just go to the website and start in two minutes. Seems like an excellent way to take advantage of our instant gratification culture.
simply not going to happen. like subscriptions scams (ala Microsoft) people want to own their music they don't want to lend it. also in Europe the entire renting market has collapsed, and it isn't going to be re-created in a fair competitive market (meaning markets where renting models work, the market is unfair and uncompetitive)
Music companies would love to see digital downloads to disappear. It's destroying thier business model and it seems they are trying a new approach.
If they push the idea that digital downloads are now 'old hat' or 'not needed' and 'persuade' people that streamed music is the 'future'/'cool way' of listening to music then they can retain far more control of the format. Sure lock the vendor(e.g. radio station) into a 3-year deal - when the deal expires hike up the fees and/or the record companies force vendors to stream music directly from record company controlled servers only - thus full control of music property is preserved, artificial scarcety remains and profits increased for record companies.
This has already happened to the newspaper industry here in the UK. A central body controls all publishing rights to newspaper articles.
Of course mobile phone companies like this scenario as well.
I want my music (paid for) to be available for MY convenience to listen to not the other way round.
This stinks of serious astroturfing and a feeble attempt to change consumer's attitudes to ownership.
Just say NO!
Personally I would to see something like; offer a 'lossy compressed' track for very low cost or free. If you really like it - buy a pristine copy of the music (e.g.lossless compressed - flac) the difference in sound quality is obvious. Of course DRM would kill this idea.
Then again record companies seem to be risk adverse or just don't get the nature of the Internet.
Out-of-touch music executives (looking at you Sony!) are hurting the music industry more than anybody else and you cannot blame pirating of music for the decline of an industry. Ultimatly, pointing your finger and blaming something else is not your answer. You need to take stock of your business and figure-out how can you change to meet the ever-changing state of the market. If you think it should be the other way round - well you are doomed to failure - it's inevitable.
There must be "internet savvy" executives out there who can do something credible and create a workable solution.
It might be just me, but it sounds like about a year ago, especially in the US, was when the price hikes for online 'radio' streaming stations was such BIG news that they were all about to be shut down.
#1. The RIAA didn't like it cause they didn't get their $$$.
#2. They lobbied to have the prices increased cause they were plain greedy, and apparently don't like people to listen to music.
#3. What's the difference to radio in your car?
#4. For me - I've had a 3G or EVDO phone capable of streaming Net Radio for years. 1xRTT or Edge coverage? Pick a lower-bitrate station. Same music.
#5. Why pay $15/mo. for Satellite Radio ala XM or Sirius when you can stream from your phone and plug into your car stereo? Sure it might cut in and out now and again, but you're not forced to pay $$$ for your music, and no radio upgrades to "HD Radio".
Especially with the advent of the iPhone, and the iPod Touch, music players with built-in WiFi, a lot of this issue goes away. I can tell you there's RARELY a time I'm either 1.) Away from my computer. 2.) Somewhere without my iPod Touch or iPhone. 3.) Somewhere I'm lacking 3G/Edge coverage on my iPhone. And if I am in a place like that, I turn on the ACTUAL CAR RADIO, or listen to some of the albums I've BOUGHT. Wow. Listen to the music you own, or to what other people are listening to. What a concept.
I think the RIAA shot themselves in the foot here, by trying to get their $$$ and forcing such a HUGE increase in royalties paid that they ended up bringing so much attention to the issue that everyone jumped on board. Whoops. How much did streaming radio stations save in advertising revenue to get listeners, when the RIAA yelling and screaming 'NO! MY MONEY!'??? Bring that kind of national attention to yourself, and folks will flock from everywhere to see what it's all about.
Downloading and owning your music is good and all - and a lot of folks have posted as such - that they want to own it. Then BUY THE CD or buy the album from iTunes. If you just want to listen to random music ala radio - stream it, what's your problem?
Plus, you can't discover new music and new artists by listening to the same shit that you OWN over and over and over. That's at least ONE thing the streaming stations provide.
That, and YOU try and find me ONE real 'radio' station that everyone can tune in to that plays the same stuff as GROOVE SALAD from Soma.fm on the regular airwaves. Then tell me it's not worth it.
1) You might not always have a network connection but still want to listen to music (for example, if you are traveling or your network is down).
2) You might want to take your music with you on a portable device.
3) Streaming kills battery life on mobile devices, especially if embedded in flash.
4) Your streaming music provider might not have, or might stop carrying, a song you really want to listen to.
5) Streaming providers may not have that eclectic genre of music you like.
6) You will likely have to pay subscription fees at some point, which means you keep paying for the same music over and over again.
7) Streaming does not necessarily provide music at its highest quality (in fact, it likely does not). If you want to listen to a recording at its original fidelity, streaming is a bad way to do it.
8) Streaming makes you dependent on whatever technology your streaming provider chooses to use. If you don't want to, or can't use that technology, you are out of luck.
9) You can't sell your copy of an audio stream to someone else when you no longer want it.
10) Streaming often takes much more CPU than local playback (for example, Pandora, which uses Flash)
11) Streaming often has advertisements in it, but you don't want to listen to ads or see them so you can listen to music.
12) Streaming may eventually come to be dominated by companies such as clearchannel, which will provide streams that cater to the largest groups of listeners, but exclude what you really like.
to quote " 'Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.'" Basically, lets use our computers for radio, so we can go back to the good old days like frakin clear channel or some other obnoxious controlling entity. Keep the downloads up, the trading up, and soon we will rid ourselves of another obnoxious leftover from the 50's business model.
****Trying to understand and learn, all the time.****
As an American, I am angry fat, and drunk.
Okay... so if i rejig kazaa to stream the mp3 to 1,000 people instead of transferring it, the RIAA can only sue for the loss of revenue of a penny instead of £20,000 or so?
Streaming really is the future! Where are my coding trousers and hat?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Yes, I do see some valid advantages of streaming audio, especially for radios. I use iMeem on my gPhone extensively since it plays just fine and lets me discover new music similar to my taste without forcing me to pick song by song myself. On the other hand, personally selected songs/albums will never make sense to store exclusively online. Yes, some sort of repository for me to download it do various devices would be cool but do not expect me to let go of physical posession of at least one copy of my stuff. Unless the big record company bosses come to their senses and switch to a mass distribution model ready for this century. Make songs 10c and albums 2$ and see how your unit sales explode. If you make music so affordable and convenient to download it beats the pirate model, just as many (or close to that) people who now pirate the stuff will buy it.
"Industry Insiders' seems to be Steve Purdham, CEO of a music streaming service. Nice plant.
Long before nubs found napster..
We have a laptop hooked right into the mixer
The club hooked up DSL for 2 nights
Were uploading the stream to our Shoutcast server
Parties in Toronto & Chicago are picking up the stream
by the way... there is a nice little open source app called streamripper that allows you to record the music should it be good enough.
So yeah... good idea recording industry stay ahead of the curve..
Kill your TV
Pounds were "L", shillings were next and "s" was their nominated letter.
So when we said "what's the cost, pounds, shillings and pence?" We were asking for Lsd.
Luckily the plod never caught on...
I use itunes all the time, and rip my own CDs (and download the albums I own on vinyl), in total I think my library is around 140 gigs. Streaming as an alternative would suck because I would NEVER be able to remember all those albums and artists! I love to browse through the music that has taken years to accumulate and spot something I haven't heard in ages and play it.
If someone deleted my iTunes library I would never be able to get it all again precisely because I would never be able to recall everything in there.
Having said that, streaming services like Spotify are fantastic for their own niche. A lot of people I know that are maybe not as into music as some, use spotify as their sole music source and find that satisfactory. Then you have the great ability to just type in some artist or famous song that you wouldn't like enough to buy or even download, but want to check out.
and there are the communal aspects of it, like making a playlist for a party that anyone who is invited to can add songs to. This is a very useful service I've used a few times to great effect.
If I can get 100 mbps for 13 bucks then you should be able to aswell. With P2P your pipe outside .au doesn't matter.
then I would change to all streaming. I think it would be great to enter an artist or album name and stream all that music or to be able to pick and to create a playlist of specific songs that I can stream to my devices. Until then I'll download my music and create my playlists on my iPod. Give me more options is what I, and it seems a lot of people, want. So, I'll continue to stream music to find new artists and download them to create my perfect playlist.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
The right of copyright/redistribution is the pernicious issue. The right of ownership is pretty clear. once you get *sold* a CD it is yours. You can hear music on any device you want, there is a fair use portion to allow you backup/transfer on other device (your OWN device), and most importantly you can use the CD as frisbee, as coaster for beer, or for whatever you can think of.
But as soon as you want to redistribute the content, or the image / photo of the CD / Cover, you have to ask the copyright holder.
So yes, possession is no problem, distribution is the problem.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I remember when I used to listen to the internet radio station http://www.3wk.com/. When I first started listening, they were a thriving website. There were no ads, only every now and then would they have a PSA on air telling you that you could become a subscriber, and they would have a downloads page where you could download selected songs every week.
Then the fees for broadcasting over the internet skyrocketed, and the site turned into an epelectic siezure of flashing ads. Every few songs would be interupted by a Geico ad, and it wasn't the same place I grew to love.
I think the companies need to understand how to deal with the internet, and know how to not choke it off, because it's here to stay.
Hopefully this acceptance of music streaming will allow internet radio stations to start thriving again.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
This looks to me like just the next step beyond DRM.
With DRM, you possess a copy but can only use it ways the copyright holder lets you. With this "streaming" model, you don't even possess the copy.
Probably the "industry insiders" think this is a way to get people to rent music instead of buying it (you pay for what you listen to, every time you listen). Good luck with that.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
> Purdham told PC Pro. 'Why do you actually
? need to have something downloaded on your
> PC? The streaming idea is really the future.'"
Duh!
If you download that file you can play it multiple times without needing to pay for any more network bandwidth.
If you have to stream it to your computer you'll not only have to pay for the bandwidth each time, but you'll have to pay to listen to it each time.
Streaming is only the "future" of music on the Internet if you believe that in the past you could only listen to music via the radio.
I stream my music, alright. It's amazingly handy. The convenience of not being tied down to one computer, the fact that the music isn't taking up space on both my laptop and my desktop and so on and so forth.
Trick is, though, I'm the one that has the streaming server, as represented by a Linux box with a samba share (every music player plays nice with shares :P)
I'm not going to allow the ability to enjoy my music be constrained by my ISP's uptime. Given that ISPs are shifting to a payment-per-byte model, I don't want to pay for the downloading of the music that I'm listening to, times the number of times I listen to it.
I think someone in the RIAA decided to take Google's "desktop-on-the-web" idea and apply it to music. Someone might want to mention that users aren't exactly lining up to find additional leashes to tie around their computers.
Working from home I listen to quite a lot of music during the day/evening. In the one month I used Spotify heavily (5-10 albums over the course of a day) I found my bandwidth usage more than doubled over prior months while all other usage remained constant. Unfortunately that meant I went out of the scope of my ISP's monthly data limit and my bill skyrocketed. As strictly anecdotal evidence I'm now hesitant of any streaming service, especially one that utilizes P2P/caching technology as Spotify claims it does.
This reminds me of a nightmare I had. I was out and about looking for a bathroom and for some reason all of them required a small fee paid by credit card to use. When I got back home, I discovered my own bathroom had been outfitted with a similar payment requiring device. Is this what the world is coming to?
but just not written to disk. He wants to know why I would want a file on my computer, huh? Well to start, there aren't any lossy streaming services and I like high quality bits!
Purdham really is a freaking idiot, isn't he? :-p From where I am sitting, it's about control, not property rights.
How about because I want it on my (insert name of favorite listening device here) to listen to whenever *I* want, not when whoever is controlling the stream decides I can hear it (or not.)
If I were an artist, I'd treat streaming as free advertising and be happy that somebody was laying down their own money for an infrastructure to get my stuff out to the masses.
Oh well.
Instead of playing that recording you made you can just tune in again
Not in the United States, where 3G service is still over $700 per year, even in 2009. A lot of people who don't use a lot of voice minutes carry an iPod Touch and a prepaid phone instead of an iPhone for precisely that reason.
I use my sansa at the gym and when camping. A USB stick on the car while driving.
But at home, I have a roku soundbridge, and guess what? I don't use it for anything but streaming, usually from Radio Paradise.
You can have both. Yeah, ubiquitous internet access would mean portable devices could then stream, but until then, there are options, and I stream quite a lot when at home.
Please. Might as well title this "Streaming service CEO thinks he's going to hit it big!"
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
I used to think these subscription streaming services were bunk too until actually tried one, Rhapsody, to be specific. The problems being described here like offline access have already been resolved. What Rhapsody does is for $xx per month you get access to their catalog to stream whenever and wherever you are, and if you want to move some of those tracks to your mp3 player (which could even be an ipod) you can do so, so it's really no different than if you were using iTunes to do the same thing.
There's actually one major benefit to these services -- you can sample a lot of music because there's no additional cost to do so. With the per-track/per-album purchase model, like iTunes, you may hesitate to try new artists or albums because even at $0.99 it eventually starts adding up.
It's a tradeoff -- with a streaming service you have a way larger music library than you can accumulate by purchasing, but the moment you stop paying you no longer have any music. For many people, I think it's actually a better choice but until you try it, it seems very foreign. The only reason I don't have it now is that I'm a Mac user, and with a Mac+iTunes+ipod, it's a nicely integrated system. If that wasn't the case though, I'd get Rhapsody instead.
Yes, with streaming we can drive the Internet to the Clear Channel Radio where you hear the same songs played over and over everywhere as quickly as possible, by reducing the charges just enough to allow advertising supported radio but not so far that it doesn't keep that independent riffraff out of the loop.
Wow, how did we all fall for that one...
1. Lower the cost to stream music to almost nothing.
2. Get more people and businesses using streaming music.
3. Jack prices back up to 0.22p
4. Profit?
It's the difference between Radio and buying a CD. I like finding new stuff on the radio (or at least I used to, when they played new stuff). Then buy on CD if I like it. Streaming *should* be higher usage as people look for new sounds, then download the little bit of it they like.
If you only want to download things, and delete the stuff you don't like, that's fine. but I'd rather not use my hdd to store and delete crap - that's what RAM is for.
Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future
Somebody needs to tell these industry "insiders" that streaming is going to get killed if the ISP's keep moving to a transfer cap/quota system.
My ISP doesn't currently cap me, so it's not a big deal right now, but I see absolutely no reason why I should stream something instead of downloading it, unless it's something like a radio station or a non-stop news/weather feed.
As it stands, anytime I go to a "streaming" site I either use a stream ripper to pull it down and save it before I watch it (if possible), or immediately pause the thing and let it buffer up for a good amount of time before I starting watching/listening.
Now, if my ISP would sell me a 100meg connection for under $50 a month, with no throttling or transfer caps, then sure I'd stream stuff with no worries- but I'd still store a fair amount of media locally to peruse at my leisure.
But the consumer market is not moving towards streaming. Consumers have been moving AWAY from streaming since the advent of the home VCR, when people found they could just record the TV shows and fast-forward or watch at their leisure. This has become even more common with the advent of DVR services from cable companies.
Talk about having your head up your ass, this really takes the cake.
Some people that don't use many voice minutes don't even use an iPod Touch, as there are much less expensive ways to listen to streaming music..
then it's already yours. if you can hear it its yours. it's just waves. (dont sell it. spread it!)
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. - Nikola Tes
"Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC?"
Well, Steve, bro, SO YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT, DENY ME ACCESS TO IT, OR OTHERWISE FUCK WITH IT. Also to piss you off.
Next question.
Slashdot has become such a forward thinking place. Who else could have conceived of such a brilliant idea ?
i feel that any of these conversations about the future of copyright vis a vis music is incomplete insofar as they do not touch the reliance of the music industry on an artificial scarcity which no longer exists. music is now easy and cheap to make and distribute, and indie artists are popping up like weeds and giving their music away for free - and a lot of it is very, very good. the industry can DRM the crap out of everything they own and make it impossible to use - it won't help them compete with an open culture in which most of the music is openly shared free of cost.
Streaming is great for online radio, but what if you're out n about, and just want to listen to your mp3 player? Sound like another industry n00b with a "big idea".
All created music is *mine*. I've just let my government let the creator of the music have a time-limited monopoly on commercial exploitation of it.
Of course, now that the creators' agents have so thoroughly abused my magnanimity, I think it may be time to revise the time and and the extent of the monopoly downward a bit.
This article is very easy to mis-interpret. Streaming isn't going to replace downloads; it's replacing terrestrial radio. The royalties are only being lowered for sites like Pandora; but "On-demand streaming services still have to pay the record labels about 1p for every track streamed."
No, I will not work for your startup
This is complete and utter unsubstantiated nonsense. The reason why the purchase model has so far done better than either the subscription or streaming models is because the user gets something concrete-- even if it is just a file-- that they can feel is theirs. The barrier to streaming being the dominant method is not pricing. After all, radio is essentially streaming and it was ad-supported and free. Free ad-supported streaming and ubiquitous broadband might kill radio, but it won't kill the iTMS or its business model.
This is a bit of self-interested claptrap from someone with a vested interest in seeing their prediction come true.
Some people that don't use many voice minutes don't even use an iPod Touch
He probably mentioned the iPod Touch by name to avoid comments to the effect of "If you switch from an iPod Touch to a no-name flash music player, you lose the App Store."